Head of Persian Literature Textbook Authorship Group: Some Authors’ Works Fall Outside Our Value System

Since we didn’t reach a conclusion on poetry, let’s talk about prose fiction. You said that in total, across the Persian literature textbook for the three years of upper secondary school, you could include six stories in the prose fiction chapter, three of which, according to you, were chosen from classical literature and three from contemporary literature. We see that in the classical literature section, you have removed the story of Mansur al-Hallaj from Tazkirat al-Awliya and the story of Hasanak the Vizier from Tarikh-i Bayhaqi. In the contemporary literature section of the current Persian literature textbooks, there is also no trace of Sadegh Hedayat, Gholamhossein Sa’edi, Mahmoud Dowlatabadi, Simin Daneshvar, or Bozorg Alavi; whatever was there has been removed, even though these individuals are among the most important contemporary writers of our country. You have even removed Simin Daneshvar’s story “Savushun” and Bozorg Alavi’s “Her Eyes.” On what logic were these decisions made in the authorship council? The current impression is that a specific group with a political outlook has authored the books.

Our selection criterion is the national curriculum. I also do not accept that the outlook of a specific faction has been involved in authoring the books. Look, in the story chapter, there is a work by Mohammad Ali Jamalzadeh, who is the pioneer of contemporary Iranian prose fiction. There is also a story by Jamal Mirsadeghi. We have also included Rasul Parvizi’s story “My Glasses” in the textbook. It is not the case that all of these have been removed. When the volume of lessons has been reduced, we are forced to choose one from among Bozorg Alavi, Simin Daneshvar, and Jamalzadeh.

As it happens, you kept the neutral stories and poems and removed those with critical and protest themes; for example, you have taken out Gholamhossein Sa’edi’s story, or the texts of Hasanak the Vizier and Mansur al-Hallaj, which are very impactful.

Yes, they were impactful, but you cannot ask why one is present and another is not; for instance, the narrative of Mansur al-Hallaj was printed in the pre-university textbook, a grade that has been eliminated entirely. Nevertheless, we tried to use some texts like the “Neynameh,” but some texts did not fit the new chapter headings defined by the national curriculum; for example, the story of Hasanak the Vizier could not be placed in didactic literature. Our hands were tied. You cannot point to a specific work and ask why it was not included. Now, do you recognize the “Neynameh” more as a mystical text or the tale of Mansur al-Hallaj? There is a problem with the way you are judging.

Then you tell me, where should an Iranian teenager or young adult get to know prominent and influential writers and poets like Bozorg Alavi, Sayeh, and the others I mentioned?

Look, Iranian children do not become acquainted with literature solely through textbooks. You know better than I do that our young people have more awareness and information beyond the scope of the textbook; therefore, when our hands are tied and our capacity is limited, we cannot include an endless number of stories and poems. Naturally, teachers also introduce other writers.

Let’s go back to the removed poems. All the poems that had a protest or critical theme have been removed from the Persian textbook; for example, Houshang Ebtehaj’s (Sayeh) poem “In This House of Desolation,” Akhavan-Sales’s poem “The Leafless Garden,” or Nima Yushij’s “Darug,” and so on.

Because better alternatives have emerged, and we are not obligated to include works by the poets you mentioned. If those protest poems were removed, they were replaced by a poem by Seif Farghani, or we published a poem by Parvin E'tesami, which itself exemplifies protest poetry. How can you say this is not protest literature? I reiterate: when the volume of lessons and textbooks is reduced, we have no choice but to select, and we were compelled to omit the works of some poets and writers. Back when the Persian textbook was divided into classical and contemporary literature sections, many teachers messaged us saying that this chapter division betrayed contemporary literature, because you could only include works from a limited number of contemporary authors. But that is not the case now, and there are nearly 20 contemporary works in the textbooks.

Now, you tell us which poem you replaced Sayeh's 'The House of Helplessness' with.

We initially selected another poem by this poet, but it did not fit into our literary chapters; therefore, we removed that one as well and published a better poem by the late Salman Herati.

So, the late Salman Herati holds a higher position in contemporary literature than Hushang Ebtehaj and Shamloo?

The themes of Ebtehaj's poems were not suitable for textbooks.

Let's also address the subject of the literary history book. Extensive censorship has occurred there as well, and the names of many prominent contemporary and even classical poets and writers have been removed.

In this course, our duty is to teach what has occurred in the course of the country's literature; therefore, in the Literary Sciences and Techniques book, when we reach contemporary literature, we have introduced all writers and poets, even Forough Farrokhzad, Shamloo, and Sadegh Hedayat. But even in that book, our hands are tied, because the course title has changed and it is no longer literary history. In other words, the Literary Sciences and Techniques book has replaced the previous book, and in the new book, we have only dedicated 2 chapters to literary history. In these 2 lessons, we must introduce the poets and writers of the past hundred years, and for this reason, there is no opportunity to address all of them.

Some time ago, the Ofogh network aired a detailed program about Forough Farrokhzad and her poems, where, incidentally, Morteza Amiri Esfandagheh—one of whose works has recently been included in the school Persian literature textbook—was the speaker for this program and spoke very supportively about Forough. How is it that producing a supportive program about Forough Farrokhzad is permitted on television, but in the literary history book, a student should not become acquainted with this literary figure?

Literary history has had the highest rate of academic decline over the past 50 years and has been among the most difficult subjects on the university entrance exam, because it was solely based on the development of theoretical foundations and contained many details; therefore, we authored this course in the service of literary criticism and taught students how to critique poems. Does our youth community not need to know literary criticism, and must they always memorize the numerous names of poets and writers?

Overall, your statements can be summarized in these two sentences: first, the content volume of the Persian literature textbook has been reduced, and for this reason, some lessons have been removed; and second, the National Curriculum Document, which was written during the previous administration by a specific intellectual faction, dictates to you what content should be included in textbooks, especially Persian literature—meaning a political perspective effectively dominates textbook authorship.

We are obligated to do so. We are a state system and must operate within the framework of the National Curriculum Document; besides, no one has sworn that a literary work is suitable for all generations. For instance, regarding Gholamhossein Sa'edi's story "The Cow," one cannot say that students enjoy it as they did in the past, or concerning Akhavan-Sales's "The Leafless Garden," for years teachers wrote to the textbook authorship office that its theme is one of despair and hopelessness. I also do not accept that a specific ideology lies behind the non-repetition of certain poems and works in the newly authored textbook. The only issue is that when you live within a value system, to preserve its integrity you are obligated to choose between two texts the one that is closer to the system's convictions and beliefs, but I do not call this adherence to a specific ideology. It is precisely on this basis that I say we have some beautiful texts in literature that, because they belong to individuals who fall outside our value system, we cannot include a work by them.

ـ When you live within a value system, to preserve its integrity you are obligated to choose between two texts the one that is closer to the system's convictions and beliefs, but I do not call this adherence to a specific ideology

ـ The story of Hasanak the Vizier could not be included in didactic literature; our hands were tied

ـ Akhavan-Sales's poem "The Leafless Garden" has a theme of despair and hopelessness, and for years teachers wrote to the textbook authorship office

ـ I do not accept that the perspective of a specific faction has interfered in the authorship of the books

ـ The themes of Ebtehaj's poems were not suitable for textbooks. We included one poem by this poet, but it did not fit into our literary chapters, so we removed even that and put in a better poem by the late Salman Herati

ـ Sadegh Hedayat's name was removed from the story "Roast Goose" 25 years ago, in 1996, and this has nothing to do with recent years

ـ When the subject of martyr and martyrdom arises, we cannot say that we will not include Martyr Hojaji in the lessons; rather, we are obligated and committed to incorporating value-based and revolutionary teachings

.

.

Head of Persian Literature Textbook Authorship Group: Some Authors' Works Fall Outside Our Value System

Source: Hamshahri | 13 Aban 98

Interviewing Journalists: Fahimeh Tabatabaei - Vali Khalili

.

.